Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesoverruled
plaintiffdefendantoverruled

Related Cases

Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co., 76 Ill.2d 353, 392 N.E.2d 1, 29 Ill.Dec. 444
View Case »
Ervin v. Woodruff, 119 A.D. 603, 103 N.Y.S. 1051
View Case »
Tadros v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 935, 735 N.W.2d 377
View Case »
Munn v. Algee, 924 F.2d 568, 32 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 439
View Case »
Mills v. Giant of Maryland, LLC, 441 F.Supp.2d 104, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,510
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sipp v. Coleman, 179 F. 997

Facts

George A. Sipp brought an action for slander against Mary Coleman, who allegedly stated that Sipp had been convicted of beating his mother. The statement was made in a context that suggested Sipp was guilty of a crime, specifically assault and battery. The case hinged on whether the words used by Coleman were actionable without the need for Sipp to prove special damages.

This is an action for slander. A demurrer is interposed to the first count, which charges the defendant with having said of the plaintiff: ‘This man has been convicted of beating his mother (thereby and then and there meaning that the plaintiff has been and was then and there guilty of a crime, to wit, the crime of assault and battery).‘

Issue

Are the words spoken by the defendant, which accuse the plaintiff of beating his mother, actionable per se in a slander case?

The question is whether these words are actionable per se.

Rule

Accusations of a crime involving moral turpitude are considered slanderous per se, meaning they are actionable without the need for special damages.

Only where the crime charged involves moral turpitude may the oral accusation be said to be slanderous per se— that is, actionable without the allegation of special damage.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the accusation made by Coleman, determining that it imputed a serious offense that involved moral turpitude. The court distinguished between general accusations of assault and battery and the specific context of a son beating his mother, which it deemed to be a graver offense that undermined familial respect and societal norms. The court concluded that such an accusation suggested a depravity of heart and was thus actionable without the need for special damages.

However, the accusing of another of having beaten his mother charges a graver offense, imputing not mere exercise of force unlawfully, but a wanton disregard or repudiation of filial honor and duty that a son owes to the one who bore and nurtured him.

Conclusion

The court overruled the demurrer, finding that the words used by the defendant were slanderous per se due to their implication of moral turpitude.

The demurrer is overruled.

Who won?

George A. Sipp prevailed in the case because the court found that the accusation made against him was slanderous per se, thus allowing him to proceed with his claim without needing to prove special damages.

George A. Sipp prevailed in the case because the court found that the accusation made against him was slanderous per se.

You must be